Jump to content

Blue Origin Thread (merged)


Aethon
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, CptRichardson said:

The 'hydrazine explosion on the pad, not in the rocket' story sounds fishy as hell.  Not in a 'SpaceX needs handling help' way, but in a 'this almost sounds like sabotage' way.

I can basically guarantee that the actual cause will be nothing like that, we're still only a few hours out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kryten said:

I can basically guarantee that the actual cause will be nothing like that, we're still only a few hours out.

Well, yeah, but there are a lot of things that still make the timing fishy as hell.  SpaceX is getting ready to start the relaunch train for real with SES-10 at the end of the year, has the FH coming out and planned manned flights coming up, the communications company they were servicing for this launch is getting bought out by a chinese company from what I understand, and in general the ground systems have never-EVER been the cause of a launch explosion as far as I'm aware.

Something just doesn't seem right with this, and I can't figure out why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, codepoet said:

Bottom line is - F9 success stats now suck big time.

Will this count against F9 though? Just curious, I have no idea how they calculate failure rates. Also, are failure rates ever plotted over the lifetime of the rocket? Like, the Soyuz family has been very succesful, but when it first started did it have a higher failure rate? 

Also, if it is hydrazine related, what are the chances of people getting poisoned by it? Hydrazine is pretty toxic, if not all of it got used up in the explosion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, codepoet said:

Bottom line is - F9 success stats now suck big time.

How so? This wasn't a launch. And we don't even know whether or not the rocket had a fault. Rumors say they're looking at a pad systems anomaly.

Like, if someone rams a truck into a F9 first stage as it gets hauled across the interstate, does that make the Falcon 9 a less reliable launcher? I beg to differ :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strongback looks like it was not retracted, so that puts the explosion before T-3:30. The vehicle goes to internal power at T-5... We are stuck waiting for some real information. Video will nail down a lot, as the location will be determined.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not it counts towards the success/failure ratio doesn't really matter, other than for statistical purposes. If a problem is found within the Falcon 9, no one will really care that the explosion happened on the ground instead of in flight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, todofwar said:

Will this count against F9 though?

It won't strictly be counted in launch failure stats, but is still notable as a complete failure of a launch campaign, and is likely to be counted colloquially. Atlas-able is famous for getting 'four failures in three flights' due to a similar incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read that the Atlas V with OSIRIS-REx was inside the Vertical Integration Facility at the moment of the explosion. Still, I hope there is no damage to the launch complex 41. I guess it's very unlikely, but given OSIRIS-REx's 34 day launch window, I'm still crossing my fingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Why is there hydrazine being stored on the launch pad

2, Why was someone keeping alot of it in a place were you could blow the bejezzus out of everything.

(at most you need a few pounds of hydrazine not enough to blow hades sky high). Safety protocols.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, CptRichardson said:

The 'hydrazine explosion on the pad, not in the rocket' story sounds fishy as hell.  Not in a 'SpaceX needs handling help' way, but in a 'this almost sounds like sabotage' way.

Considering that would be tantamount to a declaration of war with the United States, I find that highly unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PB666 said:

1. Why is there hydrazine being stored on the launch pad

2, Why was someone keeping alot of it in a place were you could blow the bejezzus out of everything.

(at most you need a few pounds of hydrazine not enough to blow hades sky high). Safety protocols.

I'm guessing the satellite used it for its reaction control system. Being the launch tomorrow, it's pretty normal for the satellite to be fully-fueled.

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Doesn't the F9 second stage use hydrazine for attitude control?

As far as I know, it uses cold nitrogen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KAL 9000 said:

Just want to point out, LC-39 is reserved for history-making missions (Apollo, STS, The flagship probes, SLS, etc.)

Nope, SpaceX have the lease on LC-39A now. There's also a new LC-39C for small launchers like Electron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, KAL 9000 said:

Just want to point out, LC-39 is reserved for history-making missions (Apollo, STS, The flagship probes, SLS, etc.)

LC-39A is leased to SpaceX for F9 and FH launches.

LC-39B is being prepared for SLS.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...